The departing members assert that, in contrast to what they see as Mr. Carter’s portrayal of a Palestinian people living under the thumb of an occupying force, it is the Israelis who have always sought compromise.

From the letter:

The facts in dealing with the conflict are these: There are two national narratives contesting one piece of land. The Israelis, through deed and public comment, have consistently spoken of a desire to live in peace and make territorial compromise to achieve this status. The Palestinian side has consistently resorted to acts of terror as a national expression and elected parties endorsing the use of terror, the rejection of territorial compromise and of Israel’s right to exist. Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state. …

In his book, however, Mr. Carter challenged this portrayal of the conflict:

In order to achieve its goals, Israel has decided to avoid any peace negotiations and to escape even the mild restraints of the United States by taking unilateral action, called “convergence” or “realignment,” to carve out for itself the choice portions of the West Bank, leaving Palestinians destitute within a small and fragmented remnant of their own land.

According to The Boston Globe, Mr. Carter had originally turned down the speaking invitation at the predominantly Jewish campus because it included the suggestion that he also debate Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law School professor who has been critical of Mr. Carter’s book.

Carter’s original decision set off a furor on campus and sparked a petition of more than 100 students and faculty members, who said Carter should be invited to speak without debating Dershowitz. Others contended that inviting Carter to speak without a debate would violate the university’s responsibility to promote free speech.

The invitation to Carter also triggered questions about how open the predominantly Jewish campus is to views critical of Israel.

In the end, Carter is slated to speak for 15 minutes and answer questions for 45 minutes, campus officials said.

The forum, scheduled for Jan. 23, is nominally open only to “members of the university community,” although university representatives told The Globe they don’t plan to block Professor Dershowitz from “visiting.”

“I will be the first person to have my hand up to ask him a question,” Professor Dershowitz said.

Carter is more right than wrong in his book, in my opinion, and his courage in standing up and saying some hard truths about our Israeli supposed allies, stands in marked contrast to the vast majority of political and moral leaders in the nation, who seem to have been cowed beyond common sense by fear of being labeled anti-semitic if they were to dare to criticize the Israeli contribution to the mess in Palestine.

Every fair-minded person ought to be worried about the onslaught unleashed on Jimmy Carter over his book. The groupspeak position that only a ‘received’ version of what people and interests in certain quarters insist is what must bring about the resolution of the crisis in Palestine would only sustain the status quo over there. My candid suggestion to those people and interests is: the only way that they will achieve that illusory dream is to dig one heck of a hole somewhere into which they’d consign all people everywhere that claim the Palestinian identity. If this suggestion is unrealizable, my other suggestion is that they make haste to encourage views like Carter’s, and save humanity the horrors of continuing bloodshed in Palestine and over Palistine.

This action/response from 14, mostly Jewish members of this board of more than 200 advisors, only further supports President Carter’s assertion that there is no room for criticism of Israeli occupation and aggression against Palestinians. Those who agree but hesitate to publicly criticize Israeli policies KNOW that the practice of collective, swift and and certain attack on any critics of Israel has effectively and successful stifled any true debate in America about this government’s actions over the past decade.
There is more debate and dissent Israel about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict than in America. Why is that?

I have recently returned from a two week trip to Palestine, staying predominantly on the east side of the Wall, though I did spend time in a Palestinian town in Israel. Having never been to that region before, I read President Carter’s book on the flight over.

The inferences I draw from my visit is that Carter is pretty darn close to right. The title is provocative, but the situation on the ground does look like a system of apartheid. The critics say that it is not “race” based and therefore unfair to call the policy apartheid. these critics have a very narrow view of race, and/or a very narrow view of the meaning of apartheid. Palesinians drive on different roads than the Israelis, Palesitnians have “papers” that are required to pass through areas; Palestinians cannot live in the same area as Israelis (settlements); passage between two points in the West Bank is regulated by Israeli troops and Palestinians are subject to the checkpoint policy. Israelis never get on the roads that have the checkpoints. These policies and impediments are set up to regulate one group of people based on a cultural trait. If that is not a form of apartheid, what is.

Jimmy Carter’s book is provocative and presents a side of the argument that is rarely heard in the US — even though it is around the rest of the world. The reason it is rarely heard is in part because of the vigorous challenge to any discourse critical or Israeli policy with regard to Palestine. The peace process in the Middle East is strained because of behavior by both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but it is not correct to argue that the Isralis have continually held out the olive branch, only to have it rejected by the Palestinians. The Palestinian would argue that the Israelis have continually bulldozed olive trees, with the tacit approval of the US government. The settlement policy, today, might be the biggest impediment to peace.

I wonder if any of the critics of Carter’s book have ever spent time with people in the Palestinian territories, whether they have ever listen to the voices from inside the wall.

What a strange country we live in! Even the most benign criticism of Israel’s horrendous policies of oppression and dispossession — shooting, killing, taking land, erasing an entire culture — are met with a knee-jerk reaction in support of Israel, no-matter-what. All these so-called critical thinkers close their minds when it comes to Israel’s sorry behavior — too bad!

Ask Bill Clinton who was more willing to compromise for peace: Ehud Barak or Yasser Arafat?

Carter is becoming a poster boy of how old age can bring on obsessive delusions. His real motivation is his obsession that AIPAC and friends of Israel mousetrapped him in 1980, funding Kennedy and John Anderson campaigns to chip away at his constituency.

If AIPAC did so, congratulations to them, because Carter would never have confronted the USSR as Reagan did. His simpering approach to the Kremlin in 1983 requesting help in opposing Reagan’s re-election in ’84 recently surfaced in KGB documents.

But the New York Times and other mainstream media protect Carter as a liberal—one of their own.

President Carter’s book “Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid” has finally opened the eyes of all Americans what the Israeli lobbyist with their money in Washington and in the news media buying a one sided view of what is happening in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. I hope more politician both past and present speak up often about the land grabbing Israelis at the detriment of the Palestinians. The whole peace of the world depends on this issue.

after reading book i thought of a. einstein’s comments on american education, “the greatest danger in a competitive society is premature specialization on the grounds of immediate usefulness–the acquisition of specialized knowledge included”—the opinions in the book and the first hand nature of much of the info is doing much to expand my frame of reference on what may be the most important subject to be debated in the world today–i welcome anyone/anything which stimulates us as a society to see the world in a larger prism–it is most critical to complement the vast amount of information/content in the information age.

I applaud President Carter for courageously presenting an analysis of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict which is too often ignored or even supressed in American discourse, notwithstanding the harsh criticisms which I am certain he knew would ensue. Our unbalanced approach – overly supportive of a bellicose Israel – has contributed mightily to our present enormous problems in the entire region.

Is any of this really urprising?
If President Carter had supported the Shah, Iran and the Middle East would be very different today and we would not have 140,000+ soldiers in Iraq. It’s too bad Jerry Ford lost.

I am a Jew and 100% American, born and brought up here, as were my parents. I am also a Purple Heart veteran of World War II. If the Zionist dream is ever to succeed, Israel must also encourage and assist the formation of a viable Palestine state that can flourish. I can’t help thinking how I would react if someone knocked on my door and said: “Move out. I’m taking over your house. It would engender lasting resentment. So I can understand the Palestinian heart.

its about time a US politician told the truth about Israel. We afford them more benefits that citizens in the US. Billions of $ in aid and arms. What is it that makes us do this? Do we have a guilty conscience about WW 2 or do the nutcase right wing christians have a stranglehold on this administration?

It appears true that Israel has indeed expanded settlements into the West Bank contrary to the UN mandate. I don’t recall Israeli reasons for not abiding by this mandate.
If the the Wall is mainly on Palestinian land and separates Palestinians from Palestinians as stated in the book, we in the US have not heard the true
story of what is happening in this area.
I hope that criticism of the book is based on any misstatement of facts not on suppression of the true situation.

Carter received substantial donations from Arab countries for his Center in Atlanta. This has set the tone of most of his commentary. There are Arabs who have not fought 5 wars with israel, and continue to blow up Jewish children. These Arabs ride the buses along with other Israelis. How come Carter does not focus on how Jews are treated in Arab lands, and how the Arab governments treat the Palestinians in their camps? Or is that not apartheid? Face it, he and baby Bush are our 2 great mistakes.

“The invitation to Carter also triggered questions about how open the predominantly Jewish campus is to views critical of Israel.”

Nice defense of Carter–it’s those jewish kids, not open to the anti-semitic, not Carter (Americans worse President and ex-President).

Sheesh, when writing stories about the Minutemen visiting Columbia, a school in which leftist students, with the support of the administration, routinely violate the free speech rights of those on the right, we didn’t hear the biased NYtimes making statements like “…how open the predominantly leftist Columbia campus is to ANY opposing point of view.

Perhaps the students at Brandeis will afford Carter the same respect that students (and administration) at Columbia showed the Minutemen.

……..Just another day intolerance from the fascist far left who preach tolerance and diversity…

This uproar gives the impression of proving President Carter’s point: In America no public discussion of the issue of Palestine/Israel can be led by a politician without inducing career suicide. Even a retired, nearly beatified politician like President Carter.

It all seems rather shrill and bullying; I cannot believe this is good for the long-term health of Israel.

In addition to Carters’ book, I would suggest that some out there read the 87 page report by John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Harvard Kennedy School of Govt). Walt, to my knowledge resigned his post under pressure because of this report titled “The Israeli Lobby”. It is accurate, and it was swept under the rug in the US with barely a mention because the debate over the Middle East is stifled in this country by unconditional love for Israel, no matter how inhumane its’ policies.

I aplaud Carters’ courage. No ally of the United States should be allowed to behave in such a manner without extreme pressure from the US govt, the only govt that offers such support for Israel.

What's Next

About

The Lede is a blog that remixes national and international news stories -- adding information gleaned from the Web or gathered through original reporting -- to supplement articles in The New York Times and draw readers in to the global conversation about the news taking place online.

Readers are encouraged to take part in the blogging by using the comments threads to suggest links to relevant material elsewhere on the Web or by submitting eyewitness accounts, photographs or video of news events. Read more.

Six young Iranians were arrested and forced to repent on state television Tuesday for the grievous offense of proclaiming themselves to be “Happy in Tehran,” in a homemade music video they posted on YouTube.Read more…